 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Florence v. Hatfield Used Cars3/1/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Hatfield Used Cars, Inc. under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We reverse and remand.
This case arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on May 15, 1998. Lydell Florence, who was eleven years old at the time, was crossing a street and struck by a GMC van driven by John Dzon. Dzon purchased the van from Hatfield Used Cars on May 13, 1998, but Dzon was uninsured at the time of the accident. Because the van was an out-of-state vehicle, there was no Michigan certificate of title to be signed from Hatfield Used Cars to Dzon. Rather, Hatfield Used Cars, the owner, was required to complete an application for Michigan title to transfer title to Dzon.
Dzon signed the application for Michigan title, but he did not date his signature. Diane Davis, Hatfield Used Car's agent, also signed the application and the date typewritten at the top by Davis is May 18, 1998.
The date of filing by the Secretary of State is May 20, 1998. Davis testified at her deposition that she typed the application on May 18, 1998, and that she must have delivered it to the Secretary of State's office on May 18, 1998, as well. In her affidavit sworn on December 31, 1999 (about one month after she gave her deposition), Davis averred that all the documents were prepared and signed by Dzon on May 13, 1998. Davis also averred that she took the documents to the Secretary of State's office on May 18, 1998.
Plaintiff filed suit against Hatfield Used Cars and Dzon on April 29, 1999, but Dzon is uninsured and an entry of default was filed on June 7, 1999. The issue in this case is whether Hatfield Used Cars was the owner of the GMC vehicle at the time of the accident. Hatfield Used Cars moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) contending that all the necessary paperwork to transfer title occurred on May 13, 1998, and that it was not the owner of the vehicle. Plaintiff's response was that the date of transfer, as typewritten on the application for Michigan title, was May 18, 1998, which was three days after the accident occurred. Plaintiff contended that there was at least a question of fact regarding the question of ownership; however, plaintiff also moved for summary disposition contending that the trial court should find that Hatfield Used Cars was the owner as a matter of law.
The trial court ruled that the purchase agreement showed a date of execution of May 13, 1998, and that transfer of title is effective on the date of execution. The crux of the trial court's ruling appears to be that the day the application for Michigan title was signed is the date of execution. Plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to Hatfield Used Cars because, under the Michigan Vehicle Code, the date of execution of an application for Michigan title is the date that the application is completed and filed with the Secretary of State, which in this case was May 18, 1998.
We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. Maiden, supra, p 120. The court is to consider the pleadings, affidavits, admissions, depositions, and other evidence submitted by the parties, MCR 2.116(G)(5), in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Maiden, supra, p 120. If the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, then the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Further, this case involves st
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|